1. This petition seeks the quashing of the award dated 31 May 2017, passed by the Arbitrator under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 The Act. to the extent that instead of determining the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner, the Arbitrator has remanded the matter to the Competent Authority for a fresh determination in the light of the observations made in the award.
2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, based on the provisions of sub-sections (5) and (7) of Section 3-G of the Act, that it was obligatory on the part of the Arbitrator to have determined the compensation payable to the petitioner instead of remanding the matter to the Competent Authority.
3. Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the National Highways Authority of India has also submitted that the Arbitrator should not have remitted the matter to the Competent Authority and in fact has stated that for this reason the National Highways Authority has also filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
4. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
5. To appreciate the contention, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of sub-sections (5), (6) and (7) of Section 3-G of the Act and they are as follows:
"1............
2...........
3.................
4..................
(5) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government.
(6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act.
(7) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (5), as the case may be, shall take into consideration-
(a) the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under section 3A;
(b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from other land;
(c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other immovable property in any manner, or his earnings;
(d) if, in consequences of the acquisition of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change."
6. It, therefore, clearly transpires that if the amount determined by the Competent Authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application filed by either of the parties, be determined by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. Sub-section (7) of the Act provides guidelines to the Arbitrator for determining the amount. Thus, if an application is filed by either of the parties not satisfied with the amount of compensation determined by the Competent Authority, the Arbitrator has to determine the amount and the Arbitrator would not be justified in remitting the matter to the Competent Authority.
7. In such circumstances, the award dated 31 May 2017 in so far as it remands the matter to the Competent Authority is set aside. The Arbitrator shall now, after hearing the parties, pass a fresh award expeditiously.
8. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.